Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[Kenngo1969]

Whatever one thinks of what he said in 1967, when President (then-Elder) Benson was ordained President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1985, there was a certain contingent of members which was convinced that John Birch Society rhetoric then would become practically the official doctrine of the Church.

It didn't happen, and I think the fact that it didn't happen is telling, in light of all of the handwringing occurring on this thread.  Whatever one thinks of what Elder Benson said in 1967, the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on anything is most always the product of deliberation among Councils of men and women who have been called, set apart, and (in the case of men) ordained to the positions and offices they hold when their counsel is sought.  The Lord is perfectly capable, usually through councils, but even by other means, if necessary, of "reining in" any seemingly-untoward impulses among those whom He has called to lead His Church (especially on the general level!)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Whatever one thinks of what he said in 1967, when President (then-Elder) Benson was ordained President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1985, there was a certain contingent of members which was convinced that John Birch Society rhetoric then would become practically the official doctrine of the Church.

It didn't happen, and I think the fact that it didn't happen is telling, in light of all of the handwringing occurring on this thread.  Whatever one thinks of what Elder Benson said in 1967, the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on anything is most always the product of deliberation among Councils of men and women who have been called, set apart, and (in the case of men) ordained to the positions and offices they hold when their counsel is sought.  The Lord is perfectly capable, usually through councils, but even by other means, if necessary, of "reining in" any seemingly-untoward impulses among those whom He has called to lead His Church (especially on the general level!)

Good observations. Your recollection squares with mine.

I think it worthy of note that by the time he became president of the Church in 1985, not just President Benson but the world itself had changed a great deal from what it had been in the late 1960s. By 1986, a year after President Benson's ordination, Mikhail Gorbachev popularized the term glasnost as a political slogan for increased openness and transparency in the Soviet Union. A while before that, Richard Nixon had presided over a thawing of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. So I detect something of the presentism fallacy in the inclination here toward condemnation of Ezra Taft Benson by those who harbor 21st century attitudes and backgrounds.

[longview]

I read Benson's talk.  He made many well reasoned points to establish his major assertions.  His entire talk is astonishingly insightful.  There is nothing that need to be backtracked.

He saw recurring patterns through his lifetime.  That same pattern continues to our day.  It is common knowledge that both Obama and Hillary had Marxist influences in their developing years, being avid students of Saul Alinsky (the original community organizer disrupter followed by ACORN and the like).  A very interesting review can be found in this link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/07/what_barack_obama_learned_from.html

Benson's book:  "An Enemy Hath Done This" is a must read.  Ann Coulter's book:  "Treason" is a fascinating recounting of what transpired from the time of FDR to the present.  There are many other excellent books.  You just need to open your eyes.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 11/26/2016 at 6:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

AND by the way I was a communist in 1967.

He was right.

I wasn't kidding- here is a longer version of the story.

The reality is that communists supported civil rights as a part of their overall program of "liberating the proletariat" from the oppression of capitalism- as they saw it. Clearly Black workers were oppressed- no question about it.  They had been as slaves, and in many ways, practically speaking, only relatively minor advances had been made since the civil war in the deep south.

So you could say that all communists supported the civil rights movement, but that does not mean that all who supported civil rights were communists.  It was a complex relationship.  But very clearly there WERE many communists in "the movement".  There is no doubt.

Angela Davis was one of my professors at UCLA in the late 60's, and I had several conversations with her in her office. Actually she was a wonderful and very compassionate person.  I was also somewhat involved in the "philosophy action committee" in the UCLA philosophy department as an undergrad.   It was our goal to get someone with views "relevant to the struggle" to work in the department, and most of us had connections to UC San Diego and were fans of Marcuse who was teaching there.  Others in the group knew Angela- a bright grad student of Marcuse- and so the group persuaded her to come to UCLA- up the road 125 miles or so.  We demonstrated and put pressure on the UCLA faculty to hire her- but it was not that hard because a lot of the younger faculty were totally behind us anyway.

She would speak of her young friends as a child- KILLED by fire bombs in Alabama.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing

Quote

 

The 16th Street Baptist Church bombing was an act of white supremacist terrorism[1][2] which occurred at the African-American16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama on Sunday, September 15, 1963, when four members of the Ku Klux Klan planted at least 15 sticks of dynamite attached to a timing device beneath the front steps of the church.[3]

Described by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as "one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity",[4] the explosion at the church killed four girls and injured 22 others.

Although the FBI had concluded in 1965 that the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing had been committed by four known Ku Klux Klansmen and segregationists—Thomas Edwin Blanton, Jr., Herman Frank Cash, Robert Edward Chambliss, and Bobby Frank Cherry[5]—no prosecutions ensued until 1977, when Robert Chambliss was tried and convicted of the first degree murder of one of the victims, 11-year-old Carol Denise McNair. Thomas Blanton and Bobby Cherry were each convicted of four counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 and 2002 respectively,[6] whereas Herman Cash, who died in 1994, was never charged with his alleged involvement in the bombing.

 

These were Angela Davis' childhood friends!

The experience made her a radical, and changed her life.  She was out to destroy the capitalism system entirely.

Here is a bio that verifies what I am saying. 

Quote

Synopsis
Angela Davis, born on January 26, 1944, in Birmingham, Alabama, became a master scholar who studied at the Sorbonne. She joined the U.S. Communist Party and was jailed for charges related to a prison outbreak, though ultimately cleared. Known for books like Women, Race & Class, she has worked as a professor and activist who advocates gender equity, prison reform and alliances across color lines
Early Life
Writer, activist and educator Angela Davis was born on January 26, 1944, in Birmingham, Alabama. Davis is best known as a radical African-American educator and activist for civil rights and other social issues. She knew about racial prejudice from her experiences with discrimination growing up in Alabama. As a teenager, Davis organized interracial study groups, which were broken up by the police. She also knew several of the young African-American girls killed in the Birmingham church bombing of 1963.
Academic Career
Davis later moved north and went to Brandeis University in Massachusetts where she studied philosophy with Herbert Marcuse. As a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego, in the late 1960s, she was associated with several groups including the Black Panthers. But she spent most of her time working with the Che-Lumumba Club, which was all-black branch of the Communist Party.

Hired to teach at the University of California, Los Angeles, Davis ran into trouble with the school's administration because of her association with communism. They fired her, but she fought them in court and got her job back. Davis still ended up leaving when her contract expired in 1970.

http://www.biography.com/people/angela-davis-9267589#synopsis

More about Marcuse, Davis, and UCSD http://ucsdmag.ucsd.edu/magazine/vol1no1/campus/marxist.htm

So this whole thing with the civil rights movement and communism was a complex affair.

In the case of Angela Davis it was clear that her horrible experiences with racism as a child changed her life.  And she was not the only one- MANY were radicalized by racial oppression and became communists

On the other hand, many who were not communists and who were just reasonable compassionate people were also in the movement.  Clear oppression calls for a response from all decent people, yet there will always be others with another more radical agenda who we use such social contradictions for their own purposes.

Clearly this was the case for Communists.

We actually thought we could provoke a worker's revolution in the 60's and today you see much of the same rhetoric on the streets in demonstrations today.

Oh and regarding communism, I got better.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good observations. Your recollection squares with mine.

I think it worthy of note that by the time he became president of the Church in 1985, not just President Benson but the world itself had changed a great deal from what it had been in the late 1960s. By 1986, a year after President Benson's ordination, Mikhail Gorbachev popularized the term glasnost as a political slogan for increased openness and transparency in the Soviet Union. A while before that, Richard Nixon had presided over a thawing of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. So I detect something of the presentism fallacy in the inclination here toward condemnation of Ezra Taft Benson by those who harbor 21st century attitudes and backgrounds.

Yes there is no question about this.  I had been a member 5 years when he became prophet and I remember him best for his continued admonitions to read the Book of Mormon.  It is easy to look upon those times now-  I myself look back and remember what it was like and cannot believe the changes.  If you hadn't lived it you cannot comprehend the changes in the world from the 1950's until now

Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried.   I wish Chairman Mao could see China today- he must be spinning in his grave to see capitalism in action where he had tried the cultural revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Edited November 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes there is no question about this.  I had been a member 5 years when he became prophet and I remember him best for his continued admonitions to read the Book of Mormon.  It is easy to look upon those times now-  I myself look back and remember what it was like and cannot believe the changes.  If you hadn't lived it you cannot comprehend the changes in the world from the 1950's until now

Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried.   I wish Chairman Mao could see China today- he must be spinning in his grave to see capitalism in action where he had tried the cultural revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

With the death of Fidel Castro this past week, it is amazing to me to reflect on what a feared and larger-than-life figure he was during my childhood and youth. His death scarcely gets a mention today.

And I never would have imagined he would still be alive when I had reached the age I am today.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes there is no question about this.  I had been a member 5 years when he became prophet and I remember him best for his continued admonitions to read the Book of Mormon.  It is easy to look upon those times now-  I myself look back and remember what it was like and cannot believe the changes.  If you hadn't lived it you cannot comprehend the changes in the world from the 1950's until now

Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried.   I wish Chairman Mao could see China today- he must be spinning in his grave to see capitalism in action where he had tried the cultural revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Interesting life you have led. I remember some LDS who tried to justify communism by equating it with the United Order. The book that convinced me of the absolute evils of collectivism and confirmed for me that Pres Benson was right was "The World in the Grip of an Idea" by Clarence Carson. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting life you have led. I remember some LDS who tried to justify communism by equating it with the United Order. The book that convinced me of the absolute evils of collectivism and confirmed for me that Pres Benson was right was "The World in the Grip of an Idea" by Clarence Carson. 

Anyone who scoffs at the idea of revolutionary politics co-opting or trying to co-opt popular social movements ignores the lessons of history. 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

- I think it began in the early 1950's (1953 or 1954) for African Americans.  

- 1968

- 1967

- practice of using

Oh my goodness... why do you think they call it "The Civil Rights Act of 1964"... So sad I have to LOL!!!

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

So...if Elder Benson (at the time) was wrong, then it means he gave advice/guidance that the members shouldn't have heeded.

Exactly what was to be heeded that was wrong? Here is some counsel I picked out that seems right to me:

“The more we follow the word of God, the less we are deceived, while those who follow the wisdom of men are deceived the most.”

“Therefore, if you desire to help your fellowmen the most, then you must put the first commandment first.”

“Let us consider some suggestions for our survival [He lists six].”

“May we unite behind the Prophet in opposing the Communist conspiracy and preserving our freedom and our divine constitution…”

What does this talk have to do with disavowed "theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else"?, and with unequivocally condemning "all racism, past and present, in any form"?

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

And what role did the church play in helping African Americans during this time as it relates to Civil Rights?  The played no role whatsoever.  Some members of the church were excommunicated for advocating/supporting blacks receiving the priesthood (even in the 1970's).  The church and its leadership were on the wrong side of history, IMO.  

 

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/4237266/lds_scoutmaster_byron_marchant/

What role should have the Church played re Civil Rights? Do you think getting the priesthood would have changed the civil unrest? Do you think MLK would have accepted the priesthood? What is Christ's position on earthly governments? 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Of course, Benson spent eight years as a cabinet member in the Eisenhower administration (while still an apostle - he had official sanction to do so - 1953-1961). And this helped create the Elder Benson who gives this talk. And it seems that a great deal of Elder Benson's views of the civil rights movement was heavily influenced by the Hoover FBI (including his strongly held belief that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a communist).

Elder Benson's views were not typical of the church leadership. Perhaps the most vocal in his dislike of Elder Benson's theories was President Hugh B. Brown (a member of the First Presidency under President David O. McKay). After Elder Benson's departure from public office, the first presidency took the unusual step (it hadn't happened at all since the end of the 1800s) of making an apostle (Elder Benson) a mission president (to the European Mission). This took Elder Benson out of the United States and out of the media spotlight focused on him and his views there. When W. Averill Harriman (Under-secretary of State for European Affairs for the United States), wrote to Hugh B. Brown to ask how long Elder Benson was intending to stay in Europe (the State Dept. was worried Elder Benson would stir-up the Communists in Europe with his rhetoric - we have to remember that at this point, Elder Benson was seen by the public at large as more of a political figure than a religious leader). President Brown responded “If I had my way, he'll never come back!". Elder Joseph Fielding Smith (then the president of the Quorum of the Twelve), wrote to Congressman Ralph R. Harding of Idaho the following (at the time Elder Benson was assigned to Europe):

“I think it is time that Brother Benson forgot all about politics and settled down to his duties as a member of the Council of the Twelve. He is going to take a mission to Europe in the near future and by the time he returns I hope he will get all of the political notions out of his system. I am glad to report that it will be some time before we hear anything from Brother Benson, who is now on his way to Great Britain where I suppose he will be, at least for the next two years." [Joseph Fielding Smith to Congressman Ralph Harding, 23 Dec 1963]

Elder Benson continued to publish (privately) his anti-communist and anti-civil rights movement literature for a time. But the mission presidency did help distance Elder Benson (both personally, and in the public perception) from the political office he had held for so long. And while his views on the civil rights movements did eventually change, his views on communism probably didn't.

On the other side of the coin Elder Benson was the president of the quorum of the twelve in 1978 when the revelation to give the priesthood to all male members of the church came. Bruce R. McConkie recollected it in this way:

"President Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson- the senior and most spiritually experienced ones among us- both said, expressing the feelings of us all, that neither of them had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord. And of it I say: I was there; I heard the voice; and the Lord be praised that it has come to pass in our day."

I think in understanding Benson's views on civil rights and the civil rights movement, and the relationship he saw between that movement and communism, we need a more nuanced understanding of the historical context.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Of course, Benson spent eight years as a cabinet member in the Eisenhower administration (while still an apostle - he had official sanction to do so - 1953-1961). And this helped create the Elder Benson who gives this talk. And it seems that a great deal of Elder Benson's views of the civil rights movement was heavily influenced by the Hoover FBI (including his strongly held belief that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a communist).

Elder Benson's views were not typical of the church leadership. Perhaps the most vocal in his dislike of Elder Benson's theories was President Hugh B. Brown (a member of the First Presidency under President David O. McKay). After Elder Benson's departure from public office, the first presidency took the unusual step (it hadn't happened at all since the end of the 1800s) of making an apostle (Elder Benson) a mission president (to the European Mission). This took Elder Benson out of the United States and out of the media spotlight focused on him and his views there. When W. Averill Harriman (Under-secretary of State for European Affairs for the United States), wrote to Hugh B. Brown to ask how long Elder Benson was intending to stay in Europe (the State Dept. was worried Elder Benson would stir-up the Communists in Europe with his rhetoric - we have to remember that at this point, Elder Benson was seen by the public at large as more of a political figure than a religious leader). President Brown responded “If I had my way, he'll never come back!". Elder Joseph Fielding Smith (then the president of the Quorum of the Twelve), wrote to Congressman Ralph R. Harding of Idaho the following (at the time Elder Benson was assigned to Europe):

“I think it is time that Brother Benson forgot all about politics and settled down to his duties as a member of the Council of the Twelve. He is going to take a mission to Europe in the near future and by the time he returns I hope he will get all of the political notions out of his system. I am glad to report that it will be some time before we hear anything from Brother Benson, who is now on his way to Great Britain where I suppose he will be, at least for the next two years." [Joseph Fielding Smith to Congressman Ralph Harding, 23 Dec 1963]

Elder Benson continued to publish (privately) his anti-communist and anti-civil rights movement literature for a time. But the mission presidency did help distance Elder Benson (both personally, and in the public perception) from the political office he had held for so long. And while his views on the civil rights movements did eventually change, his views on communism probably didn't.

On the other side of the coin Elder Benson was the president of the quorum of the twelve in 1978 when the revelation to give the priesthood to all male members of the church came. Bruce R. McConkie recollected it in this way:

"President Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson- the senior and most spiritually experienced ones among us- both said, expressing the feelings of us all, that neither of them had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord. And of it I say: I was there; I heard the voice; and the Lord be praised that it has come to pass in our day."

I think in understanding Benson's views on civil rights and the civil rights movement, and the relationship he saw between that movement and communism, we need a more nuanced understanding of the historical context.

I remember well the angst among certain circles when it became apparent he would be the President of the Church. However, not all members and leaders were put out with Elder Benson, which, IMO, is why LDS leaders have scrupulously avoided political involvement since then. Becoming an international church in the age of diversity and social media has made political expression (public and private) impolitic.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[thesometimesaint]

Impeach Earl Warren signs soon started appearing after the Warren court issued the Brown v Board of Education Decision on 17 May 1954.

[Jeanne]

In Seminary...1973-1974..we were studying past prophets and I remember even as a very active young girl that I felt kind of scared and surprised at President Benson's thoughts back in the day.  I can imagine the influence of his government position held a somewhat odd position with church.  That being said, I was very disappointed in that said influence many years later.  I took it out on his grandson later on...without thinking...and still need to apologize for that. 

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Oh my goodness... why do you think they call it "The Civil Rights Act of 1964"... So sad I have to LOL!!!

 

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fair-housing-act

 

"The Civil Rights Act signed into law in April 1968–popularly known as the Fair Housing Act–prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin and sex. Intended as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the bill was the subject of a contentious debate in the Senate, but was passed quickly by the House of Representatives in the days after the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. The act stands as the final great legislative achievement of the civil rights era."

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

What role should have the Church played re Civil Rights? Do you think getting the priesthood would have changed the civil unrest? Do you think MLK would have accepted the priesthood? What is Christ's position on earthly governments? 

I think MLK would have been happy to see that the LDS church finally allowed blacks to have the priesthood...but that didn't take place until 1978, because that is when's God apparently changed his mind on this whole issue...

[longview]

57 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Impeach Earl Warren signs soon started appearing after the Warren court issued the Brown v Board of Education Decision on 17 May 1954.

Careful distinctions have to be made between:  1- ruling on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, executive actions by the President or regulations by the bureaucracy;  2- legislating from the bench or implementing social engineering preferences.  Read the following snippets:

From http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/136169/john-bulletproof-conservative-roberts-daniel-flynn

The pattern of Republican-appointed jurists upholding constitutionally-questionable laws pushed by liberals is by now a familiar one.
Dwight Eisenhower made California Governor Earl Warren the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He wrote the 5-4 opinion invalidating the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who confessed to kidnapping and raping a teenage girl, because the police hadn’t informed him of his legal rights. The demand that police serve as legal advisors to those they apprehend directly resulted in the release of numerous dangerous people, including a man who had stabbed his wife and five children to death. Miranda v. Arizona proved one in a line of cases in which the Warren Court weakened the criminal justice system.
Ike famously dubbed Warren “the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made.” Other Republicans would repeat rather than learn from the 34th president’s “damn fool mistake.”

From http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/173518/liberalism-versus-blacks-thomas-sowell

One of the most polarizing and counterproductive liberal crusades of the 20th century has been the decades-long busing crusade to send black children to predominantly white schools. The idea behind this goes back to the pronouncement by Chief Justice Earl Warren that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
Yet within walking distance of the Supreme Court where this pronouncement was made was an all-black high school that had scored higher than two-thirds of the city's white high schools taking the same test — way back in 1899! But who cares about facts, when you are on a liberal crusade that makes you feel morally superior?
To challenge government-imposed racial segregation and discrimination is one thing. But to claim that blacks get a better education if they sit next to whites in school is something very different. And it is something that goes counter to the facts.
Many liberal ideas about race sound plausible, and it is understandable that these ideas might have been attractive 50 years ago. What is not understandable is how so many liberals can blindly ignore 50 years of evidence to the contrary since then.

From http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262488/campus-lunacy-part-ii-walter-williams

Should UC Berkeley students and faculty demand the renaming of Warren Hall, named after California Attorney General Earl Warren, who instigated the wartime internment of tens of thousands of innocent Japanese-American citizens?

From http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263944/clash-police-policies-thomas-sowell

In his memoirs, the Supreme Court's Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that "all of us must assume a share of the responsibility" for rising crime rates in the 1960s because "for decades we have swept under the rug" the slum conditions that breed crime.
But the hard fact is that the murder rate in the country as a whole was going down during those very decades when social problems in the slums were supposedly being neglected.
Homicide rates among black males went down by 18 percent in the 1940s and by 22 percent in the 1950s. It was in the 1960s, when the ideas of Chief Justice Warren and others triumphed, that this long decline in homicide rates among black males reversed and skyrocketed by 89 percent, wiping out all the progress of the previous 20 years.

From http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264391/dunbar-high-school-after-100-years-thomas-sowell (this VERY excellent, well worth reading in entirety):

How could all of this come to an abrupt end in the 1950s? Like many other disasters, it began with good intentions and arbitrary assumptions.
When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of "Brown v. Board of Education" that racially separate schools were "inherently unequal," Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court.
A higher percentage of Dunbar graduates went on to college than the percentage at any white public high school in Washington. But what do facts matter when there is heady rhetoric and crusading zeal?
There is no question that racially segregated schools in the South provided an inadequate education for blacks. But the assumption that racial "integration" was the answer led to years of racial polarization and turmoil over busing, with little, if any, educational improvement.
Today, there is a new Dunbar High School building, costing more than $100 million. But its graduates go on to college at only about half the rate of Dunbar graduates in earlier and poorer times. Politics can deliver costly "favors," even when it cannot deliver quality education.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Exactly what was to be heeded that was wrong? Here is some counsel I picked out that seems right to me:

“The more we follow the word of God, the less we are deceived, while those who follow the wisdom of men are deceived the most.”

 

“Therefore, if you desire to help your fellowmen the most, then you must put the first commandment first.”

 

“Let us consider some suggestions for our survival [He lists six].”

 

“May we unite behind the Prophet in opposing the Communist conspiracy and preserving our freedom and our divine constitution…”

 

What does this talk have to do with disavowed "theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else"?, and with unequivocally condemning "all racism, past and present, in any form"?

 

 

MLK was clearly the leader of the Civil Rights movements in the 1960's until his death.  Such statements by Benson, IMO, go against MLK's great cause.  

I am sure you are aware, but even the BoM, IMO, has some racist verses.  Those verses are still scripture, right?  

[thesometimesaint]

Benson was a racist. But Benson wasn't/isn't the Church. My testimony wasn't/isn't based on Benson's political idea's. For which I'm eternally grateful. 

I don't see it in the Book of Mormon. Both Nephites and Lamanites were Lehites to begin with.

Edited November 28, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fair-housing-act

"The Civil Rights Act signed into law in April 1968–popularly known as the Fair Housing Act–prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin and sex. Intended as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the bill was the subject of a contentious debate in the Senate, but was passed quickly by the House of Representatives in the days after the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. The act stands as the final great legislative achievement of the civil rights era."

Boy you are stubborn (nothing like holding fast to what you don't want to know!), LOL! So the Civil Rights Act was passed in the year... as in my question, "When were civil rights laws first passed in the USA?"

21 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

MLK was clearly the leader of the Civil Rights movements in the 1960's until his death.  Such statements by Benson, IMO, go against MLK's great cause.  

I am sure you are aware, but even the BoM, IMO, has some racist verses.  Those verses are still scripture, right?  

Which statements in the talk go against MLK's great cause? The four I listed don't...

What statements in the talk are racist?

CFR the racist verses in the Book of Mormon, and how they are racist.

[ERayR]

On 11/26/2016 at 6:17 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Why is it a problem?  Have you read the talk in its entirety?  

It's problematic because you have an apostle of the Lord telling thousands (essentially millions) of people that the Civil Rights Movement is a false/communist plot at a General Conference.  First of all, it is considered "scripture" according the the source below:

 

hat is not what he is saying.  That is what you are saying he said. 

[ERayR]

On 11/26/2016 at 6:19 PM, Ouagadougou said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-6-general-conference?lang=eng

"The Words of the Prophets Delivered through the Spirit during General Conference Are Latter-day Scripture."

If it is considered "latter-day scripture," then it would be false scripture, unless one agrees with what Elder Benson had to say in his talk, which I hope is not the case.

One would first have to agree that your rendition of what he said is accurate.  I don't.

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Boy you are stubborn (nothing like holding fast to what you don't want to know!), LOL! So the Civil Rights Act was passed in the year... as in my question, "When were civil rights laws first passed in the USA?"

Which statements in the talk go against MLK's great cause? The four I listed don't...

What statements in the talk are racist?

CFR the racist verses in the Book of Mormon, and how they are racist.

You sure like to throw the CFR around don't you? I don't have a lot of time and the CFR wasn't directed at me so I'll just list a couple of possibilities.

Quote

2 Nephi 5:21-23:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

The cursing describes a skin of blackness that came upon them because of their iniquity so that they would not be enticing to the righteous. These dark skinned people were described as loathsome, idle, full of mischief and subtlety. Even the seed was cursed if it mixed.

Quote

2 Nephi 30:6

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

Quote

3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

Again, these are just a few verses. Do you really need someone to explain to you how this could be viewed as racist?

ETA: It's my belief that racism in the BoM is one of the imperfections of men and that we are intended to learn from their error.

Edited November 28, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[ERayR]

On 11/27/2016 at 10:16 AM, Ouagadougou said:

I meant "fallible" 😀

I am of the belief now (just over the last few years) that these men are not prophets.  I am interested to see how others make it work for them, especially when you take into consideration all the doctrine/policies that have changed since the origins of Mormonism, along with the many controversial statements past leaders have made.  

Well I work under the assumption that my first impressions, assumptions and interpretations are not always accurate.  ( yours are not )